Within the definitions being used as “clean” and “renewables”.
It’s not like wind and solar are actually either clean or using renewable materials either as deployed.
Those solar panels don’t magically make themselves and deliver themselves magically to your roof and the batteries needed to use them don’t either. Neither do they magically renew themselves and dispose of themselves.
No, you're just making that up. Ironic really given your stance on teachers "lying".
Renewables are very clearly defined and come from energy sources that either aren't going to run out (in humanity's lifetime at any rate) or can be replaced at the same rate as they are consumed.
Nuclear does not in any way meet that criteria using present technology.
Nor is it green because of the very obvious legacy waste issues (which eclipse the disposal and recycling of renewable collectors).
I don’t have “ideas” – I’m doing it already!
You are yes. But that's not enough, as you've said. What are your ideas to get everyone to do what's needed? Because that's what we need.
What are YOU going to do to save your grandchildren?
I have no idea what to do. Sure, I can (for example) not fly, but I don't know how to stop others from flying.
That's weak @molgrips. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. It's now down to you to figure it out and act.
But you're lying - if not to me, at least to yourself. I got roasted (as I knew I would) for suggesting we all do one thing that is really easy to do, doesn't require legislation, and is 100% in our own power: have only one kid.
These sort of threads are started because people want to make themselves feel good - not because anyone has any intention of doing the right thing. I've given you the problem, the context, and I wasn't not serious about a potential course of action if you want to force people to take notice - it worked for the suffragettes and Mandela, and they were only fighting for female equality and equal rights in South Africa - not the continued existence of life on earth.
IF you ain't gonna get your hands dirty to save your grandkids people, the least you could do is stop whining on the internet. Save the electricity and turn your TV off and go for a ride instead. It won't be long before the basic inescapable physics of the Universe consigns the riding of bikes on planet Earth to non-existence once again. And there'll be nobody around to mourn it.
I got roasted (as I knew I would) for suggesting we all do one thing that is really easy to do, doesn’t require legislation, and is 100% in our own power: have only one kid.
Well I've got two already. Do you want me to kill one? I stopped at two for many reasons but one was that two is enough to secure depopulation.
But what do you think will happen if everyone has one kid? I'm not dismissing the idea, I want to explore it. It's clearly not enough either because it'll take 80 years to work. That's too long. And most people won't do it so it won't work anyway. You can persuade us on here to do it, but thats not enough.
IF you ain’t gonna get your hands dirty to save your grandkids people
Get my hands dirty how? I already have two kids, as I said. Too late for that.
if you want to force people to take notice – it worked for the suffragettes and Mandela,
They were fighting for things that were much much easier to implement.
Cutting back on food waste. Plan meals, grow some of your own produce, only buy in season.
Make your garden and green space work for nature, build a bug house, dig and build a pond.
Get children to walk, cycle or scoot to school.
Turn off all the lights in rooms you are not using.
Try and join a 'green' charity eg Friends of the earth, Greenpeace, the wildlife trust, the woodland trust, RSPB etc. These charities can do so much on our behalf for as little as £5 per month.
Lobby your MP.
Reuse, repair, recycle, upcycle, buy second hand, use thrift groups.
But, this is the thing we can't preach, it does not work. Start small with friends, family and neighbours. Explain why cycling to the shop is fun and good exercise. Suggest ways they can improve their 'green' credentials.
There are always going to be those that don't give a toss and will never, ever do anything that disrupts their easy, pleasant, comfortable lives. I live next door to such people and believe me they are not going to change.
For most humans in the Western world putting their rubbish into the correct recycling receptacle is 'doing their bit' and is the most they'll do in their lifetime.
If we accept the possibility that it was the suffragists who won the vote for women, rather than the suffragettes. Reason and experience might be more effective than violence?
One or two people have mentioned building on Greenbelt land, absolutely not. There are plenty of brownfield sites around and these need to be utilised for the building of starter/affordable housing.
Green belt land is needed for agriculture, habitats for nature, recreational purpose, exercise, providing clean air, prevention of flooding and in this day and age - space, peace, tranquility and mental well being.
@lapierrelady:
If we accept the possibility that it was the suffragists who won the vote for women, rather than the suffragettes. Reason and experience might be more effective than violence?
Nope. We don't accept that - to do so we'd have to rewrite history. With their reason and experience the suffragists achieved bugger all. It was the suffragettes and their violent vandalism that forced change.
Molgrips
Ok you’ve made your point, we all need to die. Thanks for calling.
We get that that is your opinion. We also get that there’s no point debating it, because you haven’t really given us anything to debate.
I didn't say everyone needs to die I said we need to separate climate change from the "green agenda" because the green agenda either implicitly or explicitly results in a huge depopulation of homo sapiens.
Molgrips (from different response)
I agree. So what’re your ideas for doing that?
In a perfect world we would have done things differently ... what we have to accept is we didn't.
We are where we are and either we prioritise climate change over things such as NoX, specific wildlife diversity or we don't. If we don't then the shit is really going to hit the fan because from where we are today we can't do both without culling people one way or another.
squirrelking
No, you’re just making that up. Ironic really given your stance on teachers “lying”.
I'm just making up that solar panels don't magically make and install themselves?
Nor is it green because of the very obvious legacy waste issues (which eclipse the disposal and recycling of renewable collectors).
I don't give a toss if it's "green" because that's at best meaningless.
This is my entire point... either something addresses climate change or it doesn't. Either climate change is THE PRIORITY or it isn't.
because of the very obvious legacy waste issues
Apples to apples how is this worse than the associated REE's for lithium batteries?
Radio-isotopes are not some magical thing... and the climate change crisis in NOW
To illustrate, if putting every last red squirrel against a wall and shooting them had a net positive effect on reducing climate change then lets shoot the bloody squirrels. Obviously it won't but that is the whole issue, we either have to decide on a priority and stick with it and stop obfuscating or "people" will not go along with it.
e.g.
BunnyHop
Try and join a ‘green’ charity eg Friends of the earth, Greenpeace,
These are the very organisations that got us into this mess for mankind and continue to obfuscate "green", "eco" and the freaking huge elephant in the room, climate change.
Nor is it green
See, now personally I like Red Squirrels and it would be a loss to lose them but the actual stakes here are billions of dead humans (my species) or killing a few rodents. Obviously killing red squirrels isn't going to reverse climate change but the same thing is happening on a daily basis except "green" or "eco" are being implied to address climate change when in many cases they either do nothing or make it worse.
Our local council has no problem using hundreds of millions of tons of concrete to build unneeded tower blocks right up to it involves a piperelle location. I don't want to see bats killed or displaced either .. but something is VERY VERY wrong when the council thinks concrete tower blocks are OK but not if they displace a single bat and their carbon accounting is simply fantasy, based on neither concrete or steel are produced in the borough therefore they produce no CO2 in manufacture in their accounting.
Again, I'm not anti-bat... quite the opposite I'm just saying priorities are screwed if a few bats are more important than the CO2 created in making these concrete towers.
Reuse, repair, recycle, upcycle, buy second hand, use thrift groups.
Until recycling is properly audited and custodial sentences given out for sticking it in landfill in the developing world it's meaningless at best and actively bad for climate change.
Recycling to most people means "I've done my bit" or "the more packaging I recycle the more I've helped"
Currently someone (Curry's??) are doing an offer to recycle your old appliances... (heard a radio ad)
1) Who is auditing this?
2) Why do people need new appliances anyway?
3) What is the absolute net effect on climate change?
4) Why are these working appliances being destroyed?
The net effect and I assume we all know the reason for this is simply so they can sell more appliances whilst not making people feel guilty.
What I instead propose is if an offer or advert etc. contains the words "green", "eco" etc. there is a climate change statement that must accompany them, audits and custodial sentences for misleading people.
How can you possibly say that the 'green charities' I mentioned above have got mankind into this mess. What a load of twaddle imo.
What you are complaining about in your fairly impenetrable posts Stevextc is bad government, not the green movement itself.
Try and join a ‘green’ charity eg Friends of the earth, Greenpeace,
Green charities are a complete oxymoron. What is even slightly green about anything these charities actually do? They travel round the world telling anyone who will listen what’s wrong with no sense of irony at their own huge carbon footprints. They invest in media time to convince people to give them more money so they can feel good about themselves without having to actually do anything. What solutions have they ever come up with?
Tax electric vehicle - and use the revenue for eco solutions.
Wean the young off dependance on electronics
Walking rather than lifts from mum and dad
Ban parents from taking kids to school in cars for journeys less than 20 min walk
Better public transport
Stop super cheap flights at w/e to reduce "piss up" tourism
I agree banning private jets
Could you define private jets please. Most of these jets (I expect all) wil be owned by a company not a individual. That company may be owned by an individual a group of individuals or a group of companies. Or do you define a private key as a particular class i.e. size between X and Y, speed above S, jet propulsion not prop propulsion? Not saying it's a bad idea but just thinking of the practical bits.
chrismac - you're lumping all the 'environmental charities in your mind into one. The wildlife trust does not go travelling around the world creating lots of Co2.
A charity such as a local 'wildlife trust' is great fun for children. Many of these charities are supported by volunteers and do endless 'good works'.
At this point in time we have to get children involved. They need to get off their screens and see nature and learn to protect it. We humans are part of nature, not above it.
"Simple to implement" - well no not really, since they all involve FORCING others to do as you think right.
That doesn't work, unless we live in an incredibly strict society with rules enforced by violence. That is not an enlightened way of living, is it?
How about you change yourself? Follow Gandhi's advice. You change the world positively when you change yourself for the better. You influence others. You don't change the world positively when you come up with 'ideas to force on others'.
I am a vegan. Going vegan is the best thing to do for animals and the environment. However, few people are 'there yet' in their thinking. I can't force them to be, it is what it is. They think veganism is about diet (it's about the animals), they keep coming out with nonsense about the 'food chain' and loads of reasons which are all to mask the fact they prioritise the 2 minute taste of a sandwich over a sentient being's right to life.
All I can do is hope I influence people positively, which I am doing in a small way (smart people can't help notice the positives it's brought me).
Bunnyhop
How can you possibly say that the ‘green charities’ I mentioned above have got mankind into this mess. What a load of twaddle imo.
If the situation we are in is the current climate crisis then it is the green groups and lobbies that have driven it.
Fundamentally what this boils down to is a simple question.
"Do you believe that climate change is by a HUGE margin the single biggest challenge facing humanity?"
This then leads to the second question should it be prioritised above other ecological concerns?
Lets simply look at 2 factors though the first is just a part of the second.
1) The facts are Greenpeace are STILL anti-nuclear and they and similar lobby groups are why we don't have cheap and clean from a climate perspective nuclear energy today.
This is fundamental to tackling climate change - without it we are still using gas for energy, cooking, driving ICE cars and for most of the last 50 years we burned coal and oil as well.
We still melt iron ore using fossil fuels ... On the flip side abundant energy would have allowed carbon sequestration of irreducible processes such as making cement.
If you look wider than the UK then the green lobby in the UK has pushed slightly dirty (climate change) manufacturing to very dirty (climate change) manufacturing in other countries.
2) The "Green lobby" have their own agendas ... those agenda only causally overlap climate change.
Some of these are not of themselves bad things ... however these are being obfuscated with the huge over riding issue that is anthropomorphic climate change.
This leads to things that have no positive effect on climate change being labelled as "green" or "eco" but additionally many that are negative on climate change being labelled as "green" or "eco".
An example here is replacing diesel ICE with petrol or creating ULEZ zones which has a net negative effect on CO2 emissions.
The average person has been conditioned to associate "green" with tackling climate change not making it worse. As far as they are concerned they just helped tackle climate change when they took the money and traded in a diesel when they actually contributed to it.
There are 1001 examples, many people believe quite literally that the more they recycle the better for climate change. That is literally, they believe a product (they probably didn't need) with recycled packaging delivered to their house is better than not buying a not needed product because they have been conditioned to see the act of putting the packaging in the recycling as assuaging any guilt. If that product has Green or Eco in the name then they assume all the better for tackling climate change even when that product is net negative.
It is this confusion that then allows businesses and government at all levels to exploit this.
At every juncture Greenpeace and their fellow Green lobbyists have presented binary solutions without compromise on something that can actually happen.. no nuclear... no stick to diesel because its better than using petrol for climate change and people will have to put up with NoX and other particulates. At every point they just go back to "Green" or nothing...
Fundamentally the issue here is with our current population, rate of climate change and tipping points the "Green" solution requires a mass culling of humans one way or another. The ideal world in which Greenpeace seem to dream has GONE with current levels of population. Whatever we do now (other than culling humans) we will face some devastating consequences, its simply a matter of HOW bad those consequences will be.
Despite the complete utter bollox being posted that "all life on earth will end" it won't... not by a long way, its simply going to be VERY UNPLEASANT for HUMANS.
We can argue forwards and backwards depending how dark age Greenpeace et al want us to go, if its 1 Billion or 3 Billion... but it isn't 7.98 billion without huge compromises they are unwilling to make.
If you go through this thread then there are intelligent and well educated people asking "what can I do?"
First question is for what?
What is most important buying some bamboo socks that donate 10p to Pandas or slowing and reversing climate change.
My preference is we address climate change as an over riding priority. If Pandas are still about after we can look after that later.
The “Green lobby” have their own agendas … those agenda only causally overlap climate change.
I'm sorry, what?
You are on the same side as these people and yet you still find ways to drag them. No wonder the public doesn't care that much, all they see is nerds arguing with each other.
Molgrips
What you are complaining about in your fairly impenetrable posts Stevextc is bad government, not the green movement itself.
I totally agree it's bad government... but its bad government exploiting and enabled by the "green movement".
It's the binary choices given by the green movement that make you for example ask "What can I do?" and what drives the confusion in the general public.
My very first post on this thread is decouple climate change from the "green movement".
Accept compromise - frankly on anything that doesn't positively address climate change and fight any "green agenda" that makes climate change accelerate. Heck it's not ideal but we have to accept where we are...
To put it strongly... you aren't for sacrificing a kid .. so what are the alternatives.
The “Green lobby” have their own agendas … those agenda only causally overlap climate change.
I’m sorry, what?
You are on the same side as these people and yet you still find ways to drag them. No wonder the public doesn’t care that much, all they see is nerds arguing with each other.
No, I'm not on their side.
I'd like to live in their ideal world but I find culling humans unacceptable as a means to it.
There are those radical fundamentalists who embrace mass deaths of humans through climate change so they can have their utopia at the other end... but a far wider number of people who just don't want to think about how we depopulate.
No wonder the public doesn’t care that much, all they see is nerds arguing with each other.
So its about time Greenpeace swallowed its anti-nuclear stance, clean air etc..and put it aside until (if) we get climate change under control.
You can argue the sustainable population figures ChevyChase gives but current population levels and growth global warming reaches a tipping point without radical and "non-green" choices...
To put that simply
1) climate change is accelerating faster than population growth is decelerating.
2) Our current population is not sustainable without significant compromises and many of those compromises are not green in the wider sense.
Council Tax bill to include additional fee for an annual public transport pass.
what drives the confusion in the general public
You're doing a far better job of confusing things, even on this thread.
You may disagree on climate change, but in your posts you're absolutely destroying their stance. You are basically trashing people who are working towards sustainability, which is ultimately what you want to see. I mean fine, disagree on the details, but the overall message is the same as the one you are promoting, which is that we need to look after the environment.
The takehome message from your posts is 'Greens are bad' and by extension 'it's all rubbish'. That is absolutely not the message we need spreading.
I’m just making up that solar panels don’t magically make and install themselves?
@stevextc it's the energy that's renewable not the ****ing collectors!
I’m just making up that solar panels don’t magically make and install themselves?
@stevextc it's the energy that's renewable not the ****ing collectors!
No wonder you have such a hard time getting your head round teachers "lying" if you can't understand that simple concept.
Molgrips
You may disagree on climate change, but in your posts you’re absolutely destroying their stance. You are basically trashing people who are working towards sustainability, which is ultimately what you want to see.
What I'd like to see personally just isn't possible (anymore) without depopulation.
The takehome message from your posts is ‘Greens are bad’ and by extension ‘it’s all rubbish’. That is absolutely not the message we need spreading.
The take home message is very simple, it's just if you really want to accept it.
EITHER
we address climate change OVER AND ABOVE AND REGARDLESS OF any other concerns
or
we (mankind) is **ED and billions will die
wasn't friends of the earth founded with money from "big oil" as an attempt to stop nuclear power developments?
So moving on from infighting, how about this?
A government produced fast e-bike, European style, that you can buy or lease on the cheap or in installments, maybe through PAYE like C2W is. So you could get around really cheaply and with no up-front cost. This would allow people to get around to work for super low emissions. Everyone's entitled to it so you can travel to the job you need to start bringing in money, and it's way cheaper than a car so you can spend the money you would have spent on car stuff elsewhere.
squirrelking
it’s the energy that’s renewable not the **** collectors!
This is no different than my council building the skyscrapers from concrete and claiming zero carbon because my borough don't make cement.
The global ecosystem isn't concerned by slyly worded lies... we mine the steel and transport it .. we make it into turbines and transport them .. we build roads and lay cables to get to them and then maintain them and we decommission and we have to do the same for nuclear.
The global ecosystem doesn't "care" that this iron ore is being mined or transported to build wind turbines it just reacts to the CO2 produced and not captured
No wonder you have such a hard time getting your head round teachers “lying” if you can’t understand that simple concept.
It wasn't a party it was a cheese and wine business meeting.... it's not really clean or CO2 free because we have to make and transport it but lets all pretend together it is and maybe we can fool the global ecosystem into believing with us?
Stevextc, there are existensial threats from biodiversity both interlinked with and in addition to climate change. Loss of pollinators, collapse of ocean food chains, desertification and deforestation, loss of soils. Its complex and interrelated, not one or the other.
The global ecosystem isn’t concerned by slyly worded lies… we mine the steel and transport it .. we make it into turbines and transport them .. we build roads and lay cables to get to them and then maintain them and we decommission and we have to do the same for nuclear.
Its a hell of a lot easier to decommission and repurpose the materials from a windfarm than a nuclear power station. I know cos i do it for a living.
thestabiliser
Stevextc, there are existensial threats from biodiversity both interlinked with and in addition to climate change. Loss of pollinators, collapse of ocean food chains, desertification and deforestation, loss of soils. Its complex and interrelated, not one or the other.
Yes and were we not teetering off the edge of the cliff fast approaching a very nasty fall all those things matter.
Where we are now is we are over the cliff edge and our choices are a fall into soft sand and maybe break a few bones but probably live .. or a fall onto jagged rocks
I can't put this better than how screwed up it is that we can build tower blocks with millions of tons of concreate and steel... until it disturbs a bat or similar. We NEED to reverse this... and start accounting for carbon and other greenhouse gases regardless of WHERE they get generated.
Its a hell of a lot easier to decommission and repurpose the materials from a windfarm than a nuclear power station. I know cos i do it for a living.
It sure is but the nuclear power station will have produced much more power over its lifetime
Current average age of US reactors is 40 yrs and
To date, 20 reactors, representing more than a fifth of the nation’s fleet, are planning or intending to operate up to 80 years. More are expected to apply in the future as they get closer to the end of their operating licenses.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-reactor-much-longer-you-might-think
These are mostly older designs... there is no reason to believe that current reactor designs won't be capable of 100yrs...except being conservative in estimates.
It would be nice to think that by then global population will have naturally declined (as predicted) and we would have taken this breathing space to generally do our housekeeping that we've neglected and perhaps be transferring to fusion.
Molgrips
So moving on from infighting, how about this?
A government produced fast e-bike, European style, that you can buy or lease on the cheap or in installments,
https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventrys-boris-bikes-made-germany-14463037
I'll take that up a notch... how about a government produced e-bike actually MADE in the UK (or at Least Europe) that doesn't need to be shipped round the world?
Further to that the very cheap lease cost includes battery refurbishment... so when 1-2 cells go you can get the bike refreshed and made with a repairable motor and a standard set of future proof standards so they don't do like current eBikes and become unsupported in a couple of years?
The global ecosystem doesn’t “care” that this iron ore is being mined or transported to build wind turbines it just reacts to the CO2 produced and not captured
Yes, but for renewables, you do all of that mining and transportation once in a generation, not every single day. Sure there's a sunk carbon cost in manufacture, same as for an EV, but the repayment in CO2 saved globally is both rapid and continual. Full life cycle assessment is important, I agree, but for wind, solar and even batteries if used correctly, it's an absolute no brainer with repayment in a few years and positive contributions spanning decades of zero emissions.
So, of course they care, but it's barely an argument worth having as what's the alternative?
Daffy
Yes, but for renewables, you do all of that mining and transportation once in a generation, not every single day. Sure there’s a sunk carbon cost in manufacture, same as for an EV, but the repayment in CO2 saved globally is both rapid and continual. Full life cycle assessment is important, I agree, but for wind, solar and even batteries if used correctly, it’s an absolute no brainer with repayment in a few years and positive contributions spanning decades of zero emissions. So, of course they care, but it’s barely an argument worth having as what’s the alternative?
It's not "the alternative" but the fact there are alternatives and additional ways to generate heat and power and that this is a GLOBAL scale.
At one end we have burning wood and dung -> coal -> oil - > gas -> and then nuclear and wind/solar/wave
If EVERYONE on earth took a step to the right then that's a huge improvement... 2 steps even better... plenty of STWers could jump from burning wood to gas but hey that's inconvenient.. whilst for lots of developing nations they'd welcome the jump whilst they wait for the appropriate alternative to jump further right.
Non of the data I've seen on wind turbines suggest they last anything like a generation without significant part renewal.. that was 5 years ago but I find it hard to believe they increased in reliability that much in 5yrs.
Equally my personal observations seem to indicate whenever I see these in any numbers one or more isn't generating power.
I'm not saying wind turbines are bad or not a part of the solution I'm saying we need some stable load and peak power capability that solar and wind won't provide by themselves so we need to be realistic and pick the furthest right we can and we need to do this in a global way because greenhouse gases are global.
I’ve mentioned it before, but make it compulsory for councils and the highways agency staff to commute to work without using private cars.
I’ve just started reading Jack Herers ‘The Emperor Wears No Clothes’ (£7 on Kindle).
An abridged version can be found here:
Before the invention of Rayon from petroleum, most clothes were made of either cotton or hemp.
Manufacturing cotton requires a lot of water and chemicals.
Nowadays most of our clothes are made from petrochemicals. This finds its way back into the oceans as micro plastics whenever we wash our clothes.
Simpler just to make our clothes from hemp. Biodegradable and the act of growing the hemp sucks out the CO2 from the atmosphere as part of photosynthesis.
I’ve mentioned it before, but make it compulsory for councils and the highways agency staff to commute to work without using private cars.
Half the highways England depots ive visited can only be accessed from the motorway
I’ve mentioned it before, but make it compulsory for councils and the highways agency staff to commute to work without using private cars.
To be fair, judging by the amazing quality of staff I deal with whenever I contact the council, it seems we need a reason to make the job less attractive..
@stevextc and yet, still, nuclear is not renewable. No matter how you try to wish it into being those uranium and thorium reserves are limited.
As for US stations on 80 year lifetimes, that's wishful thinking. Every station bar none running today is second generation and none started construction after 3 mile Island. Even post chernobyl they still weren't taking maintenance seriously, look up David Besse.
The new stuff? That has a chance but only if taken care of.
Non of the data I’ve seen on wind turbines suggest they last anything like a generation without significant part renewal.. that was 5 years ago but I find it hard to believe they increased in reliability that much in 5yrs.
Equally my personal observations seem to indicate whenever I see these in any numbers one or more isn’t generating power.I’m not saying wind turbines are bad or not a part of the solution I’m saying we need some stable load and peak power capability that solar and wind won’t provide by themselves so we need to be realistic and pick the furthest right we can and we need to do this in a global way because greenhouse gases are global.
The blades are the only part that will need replaced, and you're right, there's no currently sustainable solution to this without a dramatic increase in cost. CFRP (even chopped strand re-used) would be better, but the economics and initial impact are huge and there simply isn't enough chopped strand CFRP to meet demand. But the major environmental impact (in terms of mining and transport) is from copper, and once that's done, it's done and in the system. You need never touch it again. Motors are refurbished, bearings are renewed, but the cables themselves are largely left alone.
Turbines don't turn for a number of reasons of which damage is only one. Another is peak power. The common complaint I hear is that on the windiest of days, there's always a load that aren't working...well, yes, because the systems has been sized for delivery of a certain amount of power, too much wind is as bad as too little, so turbines can be locked out and if subject to too much wind, many turbines will simply feather to reduce load.
Dogger bank will produce 3.6GW of power at average load and will cost around £6-9bn to build and will be fully operational by 2026. Technology improvements have meant that only a fraction (15%) of the original 2000 turbines per tranche will be required. Hornsea B and C are similar in scope and cost, but will be operational earlier. Hinkley Point C will (probably) be operational in late 2027 and will have cost in excess of £26bn and will produce a maximum output of 3.2GW. It's annual operating costs are around 2.5* that of either of the wind farms and will need new fissile material EVERY 18-24m to remain operational...
Battery storage (near term) and Hydrogen (medium-long) storage and burn are what's required - NOT nuclear.
We also shouldn't even be considering hydrogen boilers in homes - it should be Air source heatpumps supplemented by electrical power from renewables. We don't need to renew the gas network, just scrap it.
Retrofitting Air source heat pumps will cause huge issues. My partner works for a small housing association and they are installing asps on a small estate.
The roads have been dug up for months as the electrical supply has been improved and extra sub stations built.
There appears to be some doubt about how good asps are when retro fitted to existing houses.
It's easy to sit at your keyboard and tell it like it is, but things have to work for real people in real life.
Yeah, I'm not sure how ashp are going to be able replace the 16MW district heating system we are working on at the moment either, but apparently the council are working on a plan.
squirrelking
and yet, still, nuclear is not renewable. No matter how you try to wish it into being those uranium and thorium reserves are limited.
That depends if you want to say limited means outlasting humanity or the solar system or the universe.
What we currently *need* is 100-200 yrs
The problem is you are looking at renewable with a religious dogma... as if it actually matters when it doesn't.
As for US stations on 80 year lifetimes, that’s wishful thinking. Every station bar none running today is second generation and none started construction after 3 mile Island.
So the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and US State Office of NUCLEAR ENERGY are just making this up?
Even post chernobyl they still weren’t taking maintenance seriously, look up David Besse.
and ??? a big so what ... the alternative is global warming or don't you believe in global warming?
That depends if you want to say limited means outlasting humanity or the solar system or the universe.
What we currently *need* is 100-200 yrs
Nuclear can never be a significant part of the solution
Nuclear provides a few % of the worlds energy needs and we only have a few decades worth of supply of fuel. Expand nuclear to 25% of the worlds energy needs and they reactors run out of fuel in a decade. There is no solution to waste. Reactors take decades to build. Hinkley producing electricity by 2027? I doubt it. Its already more than a decade late
The only solution is reducing energy usage significantly
Daffy
The blades are the only part that will need replaced, and you’re right, there’s no currently sustainable solution to this without a dramatic increase in cost.
Well motor refurbs etc. the point really though is treating 100% renewable as some sort of religion isn't productive.
The main issue with any form of power unless you subscribe to mass human depopulation is the green movement.
Just as Greenpeace has no problem towing a pretend solar powered boat with a huge diesel speedboat off camera they are currently claiming solar is compatible with farming whilst simultaneously wanting to end the commercial food production that can barely feed the UK as it is.
We can't simultaneously use wind/solar/tidal AND reforest the whole UK AND support post industrial populations.
This is a basic philosophical split ...
On one side we have a philosophical species-ist view that OUR species is more important to us ... and on the other we have the philosophically just as valid view that the world would be better off without humans and only a special chosen few deserve to survive.
Don't get me wrong ... firstly I'm probably someone who'd err to living in the woods with a woodburner in a romantic way... and I understand that the eco-system is an eco system.. and interdependent but philosophically I can't support mass killing of other humans to get to this utopia.
tjagain
There is no solution to waste.
Even if that were true so what ?
Nuclear provides a few % of the worlds energy needs and we only have a few decades worth of supply of fuel. Expand nuclear to 25% of the worlds energy needs and they reactors run out of fuel in a decade.
Stop reading the propaganda spread by organisations who's main aim is to cull 95% of the human population.
Im not. these are hard facts.
Nuclear can never be a significant part of the solution
Where are you going to get the fuel from to power a huge increase in nuclear power generation?
